Talk:Killing of Michael Brown/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

Mentioning autopsies in chronological order ?

In the article, autopsies are mentioned in the following order: independent, county, federal.

AFAIK, they occured in the following chronological order: county (no date found in sources, probably 9th or 10th), independent (17th), federal (after 18th).--Japarthur (talk) 05:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Moreover, there is an autopsy performed by military coroners on the 19th. It might be the one referred to as "federal", but the source (http://www.nytimes.com/2014/08/20/us/shooting-accounts-differ-as-holder-schedules-visit.html?_r=0) is not very clear on this. --Japarthur (talk) 06:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The Justice Department announced that the "federal" autopsy will be carried out by military examiners (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/preliminary-autopsy-shows-michael-brown-shot-six-times/). So "military" and "federal" autopsies seem to be the same one. --Japarthur (talk) 06:22, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I changed the order and added the source mentioned above, but cannot find the mistake I made keeping it to appear properly. --Japarthur (talk) 05:53, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

The anonymous information in the county autopsy section about marijuana shouldn't be mention in this section.--Japarthur (talk) 06:17, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Bystander witness account description is inaccurate

Currently under the 'Bystander heard on video' witness account this is written: "A YouTube video of the immediate aftermath of the shooting was discovered to contain in its background noise a description of the shooting supporting the police account..."

I think this too strong a statement. Darren Wilson's account (from vox.com) consists of the following:

1. Brown physically assaulted Wilson prior to the shooting.
2. Wilson attempted to get out of the car, but Brown pushed him back into the vehicle.
3. Brown then physically assaulted Wilson and attempted to grab the officer's weapon.
4. At that point, the first shot was fired from the police car.
5. Brown ran away, but eventually turned around and moved toward Wilson — causing the officer to fear for his life.
6. Wilson fired and killed Brown, 35 feet from the police car.
7. Wilson was reportedly injured during the encounter, and one side of his face was left swollen

This bystander's account does not support points 1,2,3,4 and 7. The sequence of events claim by the officer regarding Michael Brown assaulting him is not supported by any witness.

One could argue that the bystander's account supports the claim that Brown turned around and moved towards Wilson, but this is also supported by other witnesses. Specifically Michael Brady - "As he was falling, Brown took one or two steps toward Wilson because he was presumably hit and was stumbling forward;" and James McKnight - "I saw him stumble toward the officer, but not rush at him. The officer was about six or seven feet away from him." (Both of these quotes are from this Wikipedia article).

The only other thing I can think of is that this bystander does not say Wilson was firing shots at Brown as he's running away and does not mention Brown surrendering with his hands up. However, this witness is not explicitly saying they did not happen, all we know is that those events are not mentioned in this informal conversation he's having with a friend.

In summary the statement "a description of the shooting supporting the police account," is too broad. I think it should be removed or hedged with the above arguments.
Saeranv (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Nice work. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:52, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I've restored the hedged version from earlier today. The Fox source is the only RS for this account (the Daily Caller is reliable only for its own opinions, per above discussion) and it hedges considerably. Dyrnych (talk) 06:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Looting

I was a bit surprised looting hasn't been discussed here (or has it?). In any case, I added that to the lead. We should be careful not to report "rampant" looting unless the sources state this. I heard an NPR segment that researchers noted that reports of looting are often exaggerated during/right after an event like this one occurs, but later research indicates the number of looted businesses is often far lower than what was initially reported.Two kinds of pork (talk) 06:27, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

KMOV back in the day had a map with pins for all of the locations that had been looted. Media sources have been pretty good about not over or underestimating the extent of the looting. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 06:54, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Officer Darren Wilson Allegedly Suffered “Orbital Blowout Fracture to Eye Socket” During Mike Brown Attack

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2014/08/breaking-report-po-darren-wilson-suffered-orbital-blowout-fracture-to-eye-socket-during-encounter-with-mike-brown/

173.75.159.227 (talk) 21:25, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

We can wait for a reliable source to publish this, if true. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

^^^^ Agree. ^^^^ If it's true, RS will be all over it, probably within an hour or two.   Mandruss |talk  21:32, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Seems that Ferguson police is leaking strategically. I will try to find the article I read in which this asserted. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Since it would dramatically change the picture in their favor, wouldn't they be "leaking" like a fire hose?   Mandruss |talk  21:41, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Here Holder Criticizes 'Selective' Leaks In Ferguson Shooting Investigation [1]. Indeed they are leaking what they want to be known that would bolster their case... - Cwobeel (talk) 21:43, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

From Huffington Post, referring to the author of the article referenced by the OP: Hoft is known as the Dumbest Man on the Internet, and for good reason. As Media Matters summed it up: "Hoft runs with (or spawns) almost every inane story that bubbles up in the conservative blogosphere, has proven that he has absolutely no vetting process for the sources he cites, and apparently has a hard time with basic reading comprehension."   Mandruss |talk  21:48, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh, gosh. And they carry Press credentials? - Cwobeel (talk)

Lest I be accused of failing to check my liberal bias at the door, Accuracy in Media apparently thinks he's great, as mentioned in the same HuffPost piece. But I'd put serious money on this being another example of Internet trash.   Mandruss |talk  22:07, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

in the "shooting" section of this article, the claim that brown charged the officer is presented as fact. The source cited is breitbart.com, which should not be considered as an unbiased source. Eyewitness accounts are presented as accounts. Thus, someone reading this article and not knowing much about the incident would be lead to believe that the account of brown charging the officer is undisputed, whereas eyewitness accounts, such as Johnson's are treated as merely statements and not fact. Since there are many questions about what happened, there should be some indication that there are varying, contradictory accounts that make it unclear what happened. Azurashe (talk) 03:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart is shaky as someone put it, and the account is sourced by them to a blog that is not an RS. There is no rush, if that comes out in an official report, or if it is confirmed by reputable sources it can then be added. - Cwobeel (talk) 03:57, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I deleted the "charged" claim. It's not sourced to an RS and the non-RS article source itself is explicitly repeating the accounts of as-yet-unidentified witnesses, which are in turn sourced to a since-disavowed tweet. Just a monumentally problematic claim to include as fact. Dyrnych (talk) 04:04, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I still think it needs some work, now it sounds as if the police officer was firing his gun while running after the victim. There needs to be some mention that the victim stops running, at which point witness/police statements diverge. Restrictedthoughts (talk) 04:28, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Fox News is reporting on this aspect of the story - Missouri cop was badly beaten before shooting Michael Brown, says source Isaidnoway (talk) 17:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I added this to the police account, since the anonymous source in the Fox story is "close to the department's brass." Dyrnych (talk) 18:06, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

It is obvious what they are doing. Leaking info that will somehow prepare the public on what would be the likely outcome of the grand jury. - Cwobeel (talk) 18:31, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

"A source close to the department's brass" is not verifiable even in principle. We need a name, at least, for this supposed "source" before we repeat anything they say. 107.203.108.56 (talk) 23:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

• Addendum to the above: I request that the statement about Wilson's supposed injury be removed until it can be substantiated by someone who actually exists and will tell us their name. Currently we are publishing gossip. 107.203.108.56 (talk) 23:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

I have hedged the passage considerably, I think, by explicitly attributing the information to Fox. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 06:04, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

ABC news is also reporting injuries to Wilson. [2] The use of anonymous sources by reliable sources is justified. Indeed, Watergate relied on a source that was anonymous for decades. Jason from nyc (talk) 11:34, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

ABC has been added. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:45, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

The New York Times reported that a neighbor saw Wilson mowing his lawn three days after the shooting. I have added this as relevant to the injury claims - it demonstrates that Wilson was not hospitalized for an extended period or significantly disabled by whatever injuries he may have suffered. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:17, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Also relevant to this claim: the alleged "CT scan" touted by the aforementioned blog is a Photoshop job. As this post demonstrates it is a demo picture of an orbital blowout fracture with the words "UNIV OF IOWA" crudely photoshopped out. As if GatewayPundit wasn't questionable enough already, they're passing off a photoshopped picture as evidence. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 18:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

A CNN reporter has tweeted that "a source close to the investigation" denies that Wilson suffered a fractured eye socket - X-rays were negative, according to the source. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 20:05, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

That link is not working. -- Veggies (talk) 20:21, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

Now on Vox, a reliable aggregator. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 21:03, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

If this is correct, it is quite explosive. Not only leaks, but false leaks? - Cwobeel (talk) 21:07, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

This is consistent with what Thomas Jackson said: “Ferguson Police Chief Thomas Jackson said last week that Wilson had a “swollen face” after the altercation and was taken to a hospital for treatment, but he did not provide any other information beyond saying the injuries were not life-threatening.”[3]

- Cwobeel (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

• I think some are missing the point; Foxnews, amongst other RS are reporting what their unnamed sources have said. We should have no problem in parroting the reports, as long as they are attributed to the unnamed source. We aren't saying the content of the report is true, but rather a RS has verified this is what their source said. We should trust the RS that the sources are "close to the brass", because that's what's the RS is reporting.Two kinds of pork (talk) 04:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This section now reads badly,

On August 20, Fox News and ABC News reported that, according to an anonymous source, Wilson sustained a serious facial injury during the incident. ABC News said the source is "close to Wilson",[73] while Fox News characterized the source as "close to the department's top brass". According to Fox News, the source said Wilson was beaten nearly unconscious and suffered a fractured eye socket.[74] Fox News quoted the source as saying that Wilson is "traumatized, scared for his life and his family, injured and terrified [that a grand jury will] make some kind of example out of him".[74] According to Vox.com, an anonymous source "close to the investigation" told CNN that Wilson did not suffer a fractured eye socket, and that he was treated and released for a swollen face.[75] On August 20, Ferguson Mayor James Knowles III told Fox News that he could not confirm the reports that Wilson suffered a fractured eye bone.[76]

It reads like "somebody said something happened, but actually nothing happened.". I think better to delete all the stuff about his face that doesn't actually say what happened. At the moment the meaning is obscure and confusing, leaving the reader wondering what actually happened. [unsigned]

Your indent of the first line screwed up the formatting. I fixed it.

Yeah, as a new editor I thought that nothing should be included except what is established fact. Then I learned that I needed to adjust my definition of "established fact". Now I understand that we need to include the established facts that Wilson's injury is in dispute, that there are very contradictory claims being made, and who is making them. That way, a person who has been told that the fracture definitely occurred, or that it definitely didn't occur, can come here for the straight scoop as reported by the body of reliable sources. We'll eventually know whether it occurred or not, and then we'll update the article to reflect that. Does that help? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 05:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes it should all come out at some stage. My concern is that certain parties are deliberately muddying the waters through mis-information, which is making the editorial job difficult. It would seem easy enough to determine if the fracture occurred, and for such a simple fact to be in dispute is somewhat farcical. I would expect to find this kind of disputed info only in the talk pages. So my feeling is dump it from the main article, but I don't feel that strongly about it. Thepigdog (talk) 12:44, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Reorganize the procedures ?

The present structure: 4 Investigations 4.1 Procedures / 4.1.1 Police investigation / 4.1.2 FBI investigation 4.2 Robbery incident report / 4.2.1 Reactions 4.3 Autopsies / 4.3.1 County autopsy / 4.3.2 Independent autopsy / 4.3.3 Federal autopsy 4.4 Grand jury

The proposed structure: 4 Procedures 4.1 Local procedure / 4.1.1 Police investigation / 4.1.2 County autopsy / 4.1.3 Grand jury 4.2 National procedure / 4.2.1 FBI investigation / 4.2.2 Federal autopsy 4.3 Independent autopsy 4.4 Robbery incident report / 4.4.1 Reactions --Japarthur (talk) 14:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Mentioning that Brown's body remained 5 hours in the street ?

People seem to resent this fact. I saw no rationale for it. Worth mentioning ? --Japarthur (talk) 07:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The delay in taking his body away gets mentioned as a source of irritation. For the actual residents of the neighborhood, it had to be traumatic. Imagine one of your friends lying literally in the middle of the street in front of where you live with, as one witness described it, brain matter actually on the street along with a long trail of blood that flowed downhill straight down the street while police with German shepherds, body armor and assault weapons guard the perimeter that they marked off with yellow crime-scene tape. Frustrating wouldn't begin to describe what that would feel like.

I vote for including it but would urge a good source for the duration, especially if you state that it's five hours. I've always heard four hours, personally, and never five. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:36, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This is tricky NPOV territory, obviously. So I'd let RS be our guiding light, in other words pass the buck to them. I haven't done that research, don't have the time, and feel the the person who wants to put it in should do that. If most of the heavyweights—NYT, WaPo, LAT, TV and cable networks— report it, then put it in (with at least three refs I think), otherwise not. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:07, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

There you go:

1. New York Times the body had remained in the street for nearly five hours [4]

2. Kansas City Star Michael Brown's body lying for four to five hours on the city street [5]

3. CNN before Brown lay dead for five hours, uncovered in the street [6]

- Cwobeel (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

This is CSI stuff -- bodies are frequently left in situ for investigative purposes and it has no actual relevance as far as I can tell. I saw "partial remains" in NYC once many hours after an incident. Gory? Yep. Indicative of anythingother than a thorough and proper investigation? Nope. Collect (talk) 15:55, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

It is still a verifiable fact, and reported by numerous sources, so it does not matter what we think of it. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:57, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

No clear consensus here yet. To save time, I'll go ahead and add some refs, starting with the three above, to the References section and report back with the refnames. Then we can pick the ones we want and easily use them, if consensus is to include this. In the meantime, being unused, they will produce the big red errors at the bottom of the References section, but not many readers go there. Anyway we can't afford to be too concerned about that type of error while the article is still in flux. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 07:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Each refname is a link to the associated article.

NYTimes.Autopsy — several hours — Antonio French: nearly five hours

KCStar.Violence — Piaget Crenshaw: four to five hours

CNN.Enough — five hours

Truthout.Protests (Amy Goodman of Democracy Now!) — several hours — French: close to four hours by the time he arrived

HuffPost.Humanity — approximately five hours

Economist.Overkill (paywall with a small amount of free use allowed, I was locked out by the paywall for awhile) — four hours

Esquire.Body — four hours

Nation.Fruit — at least four hours

WashPost.Stonewall — more than four hours

NYMag.Matter — four hours

‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

No, it may save time, but deliberately introducing error messages is a very poor practice. StAnselm (talk) 17:38, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Unused refs have been commented out. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 17:51, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Omitted witness @TheePharoah who was the first witness to "come forward" (Tweeting about the shooting at 12:03 pm.)

... and posting a picture of the body of Michael Brown laying in the street, apparently even before the yellow tape had been strung up. You can see the Twitter time stamps for yourself. My review of his Twitter feed is how I was able to find a reliable source that we could use to bring him into the story. (You're welcome.) His Twitter handle is @TheePharoah and if you look at his Twitter feed since, numerous notable individuals, including Antonio French, have been in communication with him in a very public way, including an offer to help him lawyer up and expressions of concern for his safety. He appears to not want to be known personally, even joking that he had to turn down offers of pizza because he'd have to divulge his address. But the St Louis Post-Dispatch, thankfully, curated a number of his tweets and posted them in an article, as can be seen by going to the Social Media link that I put in the External Sources section of the video. Not meaning to be offensive, but I'm rather stunned that this remains undone a full 14 days into this story. He clearly is going to be a central witness during the grand jury hearings but good luck getting a RS source that will let you tell the world that. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:13, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Breitbart reported on this [7]. But I would be cautious unless a more mainstream source reports on it. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe I'm missing something. That Post-Dispatch page refers to the tweeter as "This Twitter user". I don't see any identity that has been verified by RS. See #Two_more_witnesses (Freeman is the name associated with @TheePharoah there).‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Oh thanks. I didn't know that a name had been attached to his Twitter handle yet. Appreciate you clearing that up for me. I'd urge a mention of his Twitter handle in the article, unless there are guidelines that prohibit that. I doubt that the hundreds of thousands who have learned of TheePharoah's role in all of this over the last two weeks would be able to make the connection without us giving them a stronger hint. - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:43, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't thank me, read what I said in #Two more witnesses. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:46, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are some more, LA Times [8], NY Daily News [9], so all we need now is someone capable to summarize that account. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:37, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'll oppose the add of an anonymous eyewitness. We have plenty of eyewitnesses who have had the balls to give their real names (and I don't doubt that the names they gave were verified by RS). And I don't think this guy's tweets add anything encyclopdic anyway, just tabloid fodder. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:41, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are the tweets I could find. I don't see the slightest tidbit of significant information about the events that we don't already have from at least two named eyewitnesses. So the value of this is? I'll look for more and add them here if I find any. Feel free to do the same, no sig necessary.

I JUST SAW SOMEONE DIE OMFG

Im about to hyperventilate [now isn't THAT informative!]

I saw it happen man..

@allovevie the police just shot someone dead in front of my crib yo

Fuckfuck fuck

Bruh. Im so upset

@DomoTheTruth dude was running and the cops just shot.him. i saw him die bruh

Its blood all over the street, niggas protesting nshit. There is police tape all over my building. I am stuck in here omg

Bruh they chanting we gon.be on.the news smh

The dead dude dad out.here tripping

@DomoTheTruth he looked like 18 or 19. His parents out here tripping now

@SLIKK_DARKO yeah man. 7 times i think

@SLIKK_DARKO the first two was, the next 5 werent, he turned around

The first two was clear, then it was a barage of them shits

‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:25, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are some more, LA Times [41], NY Daily News [42], so all we need now is someone capable to summarize that account. No, it needs to pass the significance test, too.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:51, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

The significance is in two specific tweets: that two of the shots happen when Brown was running, and that the next five when he turned. No other witness is so specific. - Cwobeel (talk)

@_amourlace no reason! He was running!

@SLIKK_DARKO the first two was, the next 5 werent, he turned around

- Cwobeel (talk) 20:50, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think Mitchell gives us the salient points of that. All she lacks is the exact number of rounds. ‑‑Mandruss (talk 20:56, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

But, if you want to add the following, I wouldn't be opposed. "An anonymous Twitter user, who witnessed the shooting, stated tweeted that the officer fired twice at Brown while he was running away, and five more times after he turned around to face the officer." No need to mention the Twitter handle, no need to refer to any online fuss in reaction to his tweets. Short, simple, to the point.‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:04, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

That may work. You do the honors. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:12, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I would suggest "toward" rather than "at" as most officers would actually have hit a person they were aiming at with the first two shots. The source would accommodate that wording as well. Collect (talk) 21:15, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't understand. Isn't "fired at" the same as "fired toward"? And "fired at" the more common usage? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:21, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

They are not the same. Firing at a person implies specific aim, while towards is more typical where a person is not being aimed at. At a distance of 35 feet, police officers would usually hit a target being aimed "at." Absent a source implying aiming, and absent the source using specific wording, the more conservative wording is generally preferred. This is not OR -- it is using the wording generally used. Collect (talk) 21:53, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok, but we have at least two eyewitness accounts that say he was hit at least once while running away.

• Piaget Crenshaw - he was hit with several shots as he ran
• Tiffany Mitchell - The cop follows him, kept shooting, the kid's body jerked as if he was hit. After his body jerked he turns around ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 22:38, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

If you're saying that the other accounts need to be kept out of this account, then I would respond that this account says, "dude was running and the cops just shot.him". That's "shot him", not "shot toward him". ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:49, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Nuts, I forgot to source it and got reverted! I'll do it again, correctly. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:31, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, having a little trouble with the source. I can source "@SLIKK_DARKO the first two was, the next 5 werent, he turned around", but we need the implied preceding "omg bruh was they in the back?", or some RS synth to that effect. Any help?‑‑Mandruss (talk) 21:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done Changed "the officer" to "Wilson" for consistency with other eyewitness account subsections. Retained "fired at" instead of Collect's suggested "fired toward", per my reasoning above. Two refs, Mediaite and BuzzFeed. There were three or four more of comparable quality (not exactly blue chip, but we're using both sources elsewhere). ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You guys are awesome. As to the question of why we need to add another witness who says what other witnesses have said??? How about this answer. Because we might need that last witness once the thuggifiers among us have successfully discredited the first five witness that we named in the article. [Intended as irony from a contributor who is [go-to-euphemism: discouraged] every day at what I read here. Sadly, the very large kernel of truth behind the irony in my statement is why it stings so bad.] Face it guys, the running narrative for days has been YOU CAN'T TRUST ANYTHING THAT BLACK PEOPLE SAY. BELIEVE THE POLICE. QUIT YOUR GRIPING. ON TO THE NEXT INSTALLMENT OF AMERICA'S GOT TALENT. Uh, I won't be playing along. Sorry to [discourage] Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:19, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

A simple request

Would someone with necessary status in the hierarchy of editors please archive or remove all of my comments currently visible on this talk page?

I am basically satisfied with the content of the article at this point and see no reason for people's faces to be rubbed in comments that some have found offensive.

Is that a fair request? It is made in good faith.

Feel free to either leave this section up or remove it, as you deem best.

Thank you. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 03:55, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments don't get "removed". They become part of the "permanent record" of this page. If you want, you can "strike" through your comments. That is the typical process for an editor to "retract" a comment. You strike through it, like this: this is a comment that I want stricken. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

So the fact that there is a permanent history of all edits, including deletions isn't sufficient to allow a subsequent deletion of one's own comments that everyone says were never wanted or appreciated anyway? Really? So what is the point? To shame a person after they screw up, PERMANENTLY? Please tell me more of this collaborative Nirvana of which you speak. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 07:24, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

@Michael-Ridgway: If you think about it, it really makes sense. Because it is a "record" of a conversation. And the striking convention (i.e., this) allows readers and editors to "follow" the conversation, as it evolved and developed. Example: Person 1 makes a comment. Person 2 replies to Person 1. Person 3 replies to Person 2. Somewhere along the line, Person 2 wants to "retract" their comment. If Person 2 uses the "strike" convention, we can all follow the conversation and also see that Person 2 retracted their comments. If Person 2 simply went in and deleted the comment altogether, the conversation would be impossible to follow. The conversation would make no sense, with that large chunk of words now missing (i.e., deleted). And this is just a very easy and very basic example. Imagine a conversation with many comments, back and forth. If various comments along the way were completely eliminated (deleted), there would be no way to follow the conversation with any coherency. The strike convention allows both: readers can still "follow" the evolution of the conversation; and the reader knows that the stricken comment was subsequently retracted. So, I believe, this is the reasoning and rationale. I don't suspect that it has anything to do with shaming people. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Joseph, I know you have the best of intentions, but you should have told me when you suggested using strikethrough that you are a nobody in the hierarchy of discipline on this site. I followed your advice and am now facing a final warning from Veggies for striking. This is hard. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 17:04, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

You have been warned for your deletions, not your strikes, as well as for using this talk page as a social justice forum. -- Veggies (talk) 17:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for that clarification veggies. When you posted these words in a final warning >> if you remove or blank page contents or templates from Wikipedia again, as you did at ... << I took the word blank to be distinct from the word remove, therefore, I thought that you, an editor who is not likely to be redundant, were then, it seemed logical, referring to the addition of strikethrough in my past actionable (to some at least) comments. Again, thanks for clearing that up. On the matter of warning about "social justice" can we agree that you gave me no explicit indication that I was facing a ban for "social justice" dialogue, and that you gave me no specific indication of an offensive post that was specifically an instance of "social justice" dialogue, i.e., can we admit that this tactic of teaching the rules by the whip is still just a bit imprecise, kind of like well, you know, in Ferguson?Michael-Ridgway (talk) 20:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Shooting incident

I suggest adding more summary detail to the Shooting Incident section. Something along the lines of.

• Johnson pulled up told the kids to get off the street.
• Kids said they were almost home. Did Johnson hear this clearly?
• Johnson drove forward and stopped. Looked in rear vision.
  • Heard about the robbery (police account).
  • Angry because kids are still on the road?
• Kids still in middle of street.
• Johnson drives back.
• Tries to open door but can't because too close to the kids.
• Tussle
  • Door being held closed.
  • Michael pulling away.
  • Johnson holding on.
  • Officer hit in the side of the face (bruising only?).
  • Officer says "I'll shoot you" (Dorians account).
  • Shot fired (maybe)
• Kids run
• Johnson gets out chases Michael.
• Johnson fires a number of times (mainly missing Michael).
• One shot grazes Michael. Michael jerks and turns around, with hands up, and stumbles towards Johnson. (this may be why Dorian thought he was hit in the back).
• Michael "bum rushes" towards Johnson (police account),
• Johnson shoots Michael (some more times 2?).
• Michael slumps forward.
• Johnson shoots Michael (some more times 2?).
• Michael is hit in the top of the head and killed.

Exact wording would need work. Maybe a table giving the various accounts in columns.

The summary than give a picture of what happened consistent with all the stories. Not so much to add information as to make it easier to read and get an overall picture of what happened. Just a suggestion, rough draft. Thepigdog (talk) 13:23, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't think so, as we will be dangerously wading into WP:SYNTH territory. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:28, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What he said. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:02, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Not intended as a synthesis of a conclusion from multiple sources. It is synthesis to allow people to understand the sources better, and how they fit together. But if your not comfortable with it, I'm not comfortable it. Thepigdog (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I think we should add the following bit of info with respect to the alleged witnesses where this applies

As an analyst for MSNBC pointed out last night in discussion with Lawrence O'Donnell, what distinguishes the most notable alleged witnesses from many of the others is the proof that they bring to the table that they were actually there. @TheePharoah tweeted a message at 12:03 and had a picture out shorty thereafter. @Tifanny Mitchell has produced video of the event before the yellow tape was up. Michael Brady has video to support his claim that he was present. Dorian Johnson, no need, that's beyond dispute. I believe that for each of the witnesses with tangible evidence to support their claim that they witnessed the events personally, we should specify, using RS sources, what that evidence is, i.e., mention that the video, picture, or tweet is now available and point to it with a cite. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 19:35, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry -- we can only use what is clearly reported n reliable secondary sources. See WP:SYNTH for the major problem -- that is, combining sources to make a claim not found in the source directly. Collect (talk) 19:40, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

we should specify, using RS sources, what that evidence is. Ok, where are those RS sources? Wouldn't it make sense to make sure they exist before opening a discussion like this?‑‑Mandruss (talk) 20:01, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm just mimicking what the analyst on Lawrence O'Donnell said last night as she assessed the credibility of the testimonies of Tiffany Mitchell and Michael Brady, as you lay the two (very similar -- her characterization not mine) accounts side-by-side. Do I have to go get her quote about how the fact that they cannot be impeached as not having seen that because of the physical evidence of their presence that they bring to the table WITH their testimonies? Even if I go get you that quote, there is no way in Hades you are going to find a way to weave that into the article. Either you mention what I'm suggesting you mention when I opened this section it or you don't. Failure to mention it gives unfair advantage to those who are thuggifying the African American witnesses in this story. My biased opinion as an unusual kind of white person. People of good will may differ. What say you? Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:09, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Why the insinuation that I didn't know that there were such reliable sources before I posted my comment? Posed by one trying to "learn the ropes" and keep his editing privileges.Michael-Ridgway (talk) 22:36, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Comparison made at The Economist

Wilson fired more shots at Brown than British police officers discharged in all of 2013.

THE shooting of Michael Brown, an 18-year-old African-American, by a police officer in Ferguson, Missouri, is a reminder that civilians—innocent or guilty—are far more likely to be shot by police in America than in any other rich country. In 2012, according to data compiled by the FBI, 410 Americans were “justifiably” killed by police—409 with guns. That figure may well be an underestimate. Not only is it limited to the number of people who were shot while committing a crime, but also, amazingly, reporting the data is voluntary. Last year, in total, British police officers actually fired their weapons three times. The number of people fatally shot was zero. In 2012 the figure was just one. Even after adjusting for the smaller size of Britain’s population, British citizens are around 100 times less likely to be shot by a police officer than Americans. Between 2010 and 2014 the police force of one small American city, Albuquerque in New Mexico, shot and killed 23 civilians; seven times more than the number of Brits killed by all of England and Wales’s 43 forces during the same period. [10]

- Cwobeel (talk) 21:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Now that's what I call journalism. Are you suggesting it might be considered for this article, or just passing along information? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 23:22, 20 August 2014 (UTC)

Don't think it is useful for this article, bt a summary could go in the International reaction of the 2014 Ferguson unrest article. The Economist is a British publication. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:30, 21 August 2014 (UTC)

I am seeing articles all over referring to this or similar facts now and I have used this fact in personal discussions with African Americans here in St. Louis who are talking about either the Michael Brown shooting or the killing of Kajieme Powell where 12 shots were fired by two policemen. I think an article which curates research as to why these differences exist would be extremely valuable to American policy makers who are clearly beginning to question whether the legal framework that exists in places like Ferguson and St Louis might be artificially exacerbating the number of individuals who die at the hands of police officers in the US. The Kajieme Powell killing would be a perfect case study to help viewers understand why this controversy is now front and center.- Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Style: Indications of Race

"died after being shot...by Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson, who is white". What is the purpose of stating that he "is white"? Why is his race relevant? JDiala (talk) 20:44, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Because this is part of the controversy, and facts are just facts. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:48, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

Reliable sources uniformly consider the races of the parties involved in this incident to be important, enough so that references to the parties' races are often featured in the leads of those reliable sources. That justifies its inclusion in the article and in the article's lead. Dyrnych (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2014 (UTC)

I am, if I'm not mistaken, the one who added it, to make it parallel with the fact that we identified Michael Brown as being African American. And I'm white. So you can take out all of your anger on me. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

What are the standards for identifying ethnicity? If Wilson is identified as 'white', should Brown be identified as 'black'? Or should Wilson be referred to as 'Caucasian'? It seems strange to me that we're using 'African-American' and 'White' as the descriptors here. They seem unbalanced to my mind. (ScubaSharky (talk) 00:26, 23 August 2014 (UTC))

That's a dilemma way beyond my pay grade. White takes fewer letters. That's my pitch for white. What is a Caucasian anyway? It ain't no freaking continent, like "Africa" or "Asian" or native "American" it's a hole in the armpit of Eurasia, no? Who came up with that term anyway? Probably the same (did I mention, white) social scientist who thought that creating the categories "moron" and "imbecile" for human intelligence was going to be a good idea. Paraphrasing a video my wife played for me recently. So don't take it personal. [intended as humor or as food for thought]Michael-Ridgway (talk) 00:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Johann Friedrich Blumenbach came up with the term based on now-disproven science. White is probably the standard term (if we must divide on account of "race") -- Veggies (talk) 01:58, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I object to the provocative insinuation implicit in the current title of this section. I trust that a claim that it is not a little bit accusatory would not evoke controversy and would urge that it be changed or that this article be archived post haste if the legitimate issues raised in the body of this section have been resolved to the satisfaction of all. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 23:18, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Parties involved

I don't think that the city of Ferguson is a "party" involved in the shooting, in the way that readers would typically expect the word "party" to be used. It seems jarring and out of place to list the city as a "party". Thoughts? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:40, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I just reviewed the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article. It does not list the city of Sanford as a party; but it does list the City of Sanford Police Department. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 00:44, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I have removed the Ferguson as a one of the parties. It does not make sense. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:12, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

May be a good idea to have a section on Ferguson County police, as they have played a substantial, if controversial, role post incident. - Cwobeel (talk) 00:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

New legal information

Here is some new legal information: Missouri law could protect Ferguson Officer Darren Wilson. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:28, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

KKK reference

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Currently the article includes: "the South Carolina-based New Empire Knights of the Ku Klux Klan said that its Missouri chapter is setting up a fund to support the police officer who killed Brown"

Looks like the official KKK is disavowing this endeavor:

SOURCE: TheWire.com: KKK Disowns KKK Fundraiser for Darren Wilson - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

This seems to be setting a very low bar to inclusion. Is it really noteworthy to include that attention-seekers in a different state agreed to accept donations on behalf of someone who does not want their support? This seems WP:UNDUE. --Darmokand (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

You may be right. It doesn't seem that the mainstream media is really taking note. I won't object if someone wants to remove it.- MrX 14:11, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

That is supported by a WP:RS and should remain as part of the reactions to the shooting. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

it should be deleted. There is no evidence that Wilson authorized such fund raising or would accept funds from the KKK. Scam artists shouldn't be mentioned especially given BLP concerns. Jason from nyc (talk) 15:43, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

not include its purpose for inclusion is to inflame the racial tension aspect of the incident. This is a non notable group comploetely unrelated to the incident, picked up by one source, and that source explicitly says they were doing it for attention. WP:WEIGHT Gaijin42 (talk) 16:23, 16 August 2014 (UTC) striking to avoid confusion in closing the RFC below where I formally !voted. Gaijin42 (talk) 15:58, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

RFC

Should the statement that the a single chapter of the KKK from a different state (Missouri) claimed its intention to raise funds be included in the article? update : The sources were written confusingly/have been updated. This is the missouri chapter of the KKK, which is headquartered in south carolina.

Survey

• not include WP:WEIGHT WP:NPOV WP:BLP many groups say many things. This group has no relationship to any of the participants, organizations, city, etc at all. Its inclusion is obviously meant to be salacious and create a guilt by association (when there is no actual association) thats a clear WP:BLP issue. Yes, it is sourced, but everything which is sourced is not necessarily included. This is not a significant part of the story, and it has not gained any traction in the many many sources which are covering this case. Gaijin42 (talk) 18:38, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't Include Per Gaijin42. Just because something is verifiable doesn't mean it belongs in a Wikipedia article. Having watched a few hours of news coverage, this didn't get mentioned once. It seems WP:UNDUE to include this. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:05, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include per AQFK, unless it becomes some big deal, or there is more too it. --Malerooster (talk) 20:02, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include I cannot even believe this is an RFC.Whatzinaname (talk) 20:50, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include Just because something is sourced, doesn't mean we have to include it. There is nothing notable or relevant about this content. Isaidnoway (talk) 21:07, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Exclude as being inflammatory with no basis for any claim that the police officers support such a KKK action at all - thus it is a "contentious claim" per WP:BLP and the onus is on those wishing to include those allegations to demonstrate that they comport with the policy. Collect (talk) 21:32, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• of course include' - This is part of the record of this event, and reported by several reliable sources. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:33, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Exclude Zero relevance to the incident. Arzel (talk) 21:52, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
• Include It happened. It is connected to the event. People want to know about it. 174.63.103.38 (talk) 02:52, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• Don't include For the reasons I've given above. Jason from nyc (talk) 04:07, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
• Weak include Exclude It's reliably sourced and related to the incident. That said, it's not terribly noteworthy in the context of the incident. I'd say include it for now, though I note that there are legitimate concerns about undue weight. Dyrnych (talk) 04:11, 17 August 2014 (UTC) Changing my vote. As time goes on, this seems to be increasingly irrelevant to the article's subject. Dyrnych (talk) 00:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Not include Undue weight, we have WP:IINFO. It doesn't sound like what I want to know when clicking in as well.Forbidden User (talk) 11:44, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
• Not include A controversial inclusion to a WP:RECENT article with not enough WP:WEIGHT and raises concerns of WP:NPOV. Johnfancy (talk) 07:35, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Of course not Joefromrandb (talk) 15:34, 20 August 2014 (UTC)
• Exclude based on current information; this being a recent event, the KKK might hit the news tomorrow. I believe I did see something about them raising money for Wilson, but it has not had significant coverage yet. If it does get more coverage, the situation is different. Vanamonde93 (talk) 05:26, 21 August 2014

(UTC)

• Include This information is highly relevant to the racial elements of the event. While various partisan groups have an interest in painting the event as related or unrelated to race as suits their respective agendas, the fact remains that race is a factor in this event. The presence of a nationally significant, race-centric organization is notable and important in the pursuit of impartially documenting it. 75.119.90.35 (talk) 21:23, 21 August 2014 (UTC)
• Exclude per WP:NOTPROMO, although the fundraising can be verified the fact that an organization is fundraising based on the event should be excluded, otherwise all the organizations that have fundraised for the event would have to be given equal weight for balance sake.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 06:02, 22 August 2014 (UTC)
• Exclude as undue, and likely to create more heat than light. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
• Exclude, it doesn't seem to be getting a lot of play in comparison to the rest of the story, and is not anything important outside of a weird curiosity rather than a real significant point. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:33, 25 August 2014 (UTC)
• Exclude this should be excluded otherwise we need to include all organizations/individuals who contributed. Fraulein451 (talk) 17:50, 26 August 2014 (UTC)
• Exclude and burn with fire The sources treat this as an attention gathering ploy, which is what it is. We should give it all the attention it deserves. None.Two kinds of pork (talk) 17:58, 26 August 2014 (UTC)

Threaded discussion

• I don't have much of an opinion on this either way and I tend to agree that giving the KKK any attention is counterproductive. I did notice that there is some coverage now in the media: [11][12][13][14], FWIW.- MrX 19:20, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say that giving the KKK any attention is counterproductive, it's more a question does this "material" rise to the level of relavence and noteworthyness that it merits inclusion? At this point, no. As I said above, IF it becomes some huge deal, then yes, reconsider inclusion. --Malerooster (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Well, if I disregard the attention getting part of my argument and focus on WP:DUE weight, that puts me on the fence leaning toward include. So far, we have at least four good sources, and quite a few weaker sources. If coverage of this increases in the media the next couple of days, then I would likely !vote to include the material.- MrX 20:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV we report what reliable sources say about the subject without bias. This is a valid and interesting point regardless of how we may feel about it. - Cwobeel (talk) 21:35, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

• When a highly controversial organization makes a statement like this during a national story, we should not be surprised that it would receive some attention in the media. However, WP is not a place to try and sell newspapers or get internet clicks. It serves no purpose to use WP to further inflame the situation and play towards the goals of the KKK, especially when their supposed support of the officer has no relevance to this event. Arzel (talk) 21:59, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether it is controversial or salacious or gives someone we don't like attention. If it is part of the facts of the story, it should be included. The Michael Brown story is extremely racial, so there will be extremists on either side and people in the middle reacting to the incident. It should all be reported if it is part of the story. The only question we should be asking is: Is it a significant part of the story. People who read WP want all the facts. They don't want other people to make up their minds for them. They want to read the facts and make up their own minds. There are people who see the story as Oppressors/Oppressed. There are others who see the story as Chaos vs. the Rule of Law. There are others who see it as Freedom vs. Police State. Everyone would like the slant the story toward their own particular viewpoint. But the best article will just tell the facts and let each person make up their own mind.174.63.103.38 (talk) 02:51, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Ths is widely reported, including international press:

• The Independent (UK): [15]
• UPI [16]
• RT (Spain) [17]
• Prensa Latina [18]
• International Business Times [19]
• Salon [20]
• Liberty voice [21]
• Uptown Magazine [22]
• The Real News Network [23]
• MintPress News [24]
• The Inquistr [25]
• Brasil Post [26]
• El Mundo [27]

So, regardless of our opinions, per WP:NPOV we should report all significant viewpoints per reliable sources, and not including this violates NPOV. - Cwobeel (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

As of now the shooting incident has about 500,000 news hits on google. The KKK angle has less than 5,000. This is not a significant viewpoint. It doesn't help that most of your sources above are fringe. Arzel (talk) 20:53, 17 August 2014 (UTC)

Fringe? The Independent? UPI? Prensa Latina? Brasil Post, El Mundo? What are you talking about? - Cwobeel (talk) 18:55, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Some more:

• RAI News (Italy) [28]
• Univision [29]
• Stern (Germany) [30]
• El Comercio (Peru) [31]

We have reported material sourced to just a few sources (The Daily Caller and Breitbart), and we are not reporting this? How come? - Cwobeel (talk) 19:01, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

The list of sources was placed after the RFC started and I have yet to see arguments that respond to this. Given these sources it is not a insignificant view anymore. - Cwobeel (talk) 20:29, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Looks like the official KKK is disavowing this endeavor:

SOURCE: TheWire.com: KKK Disowns KKK Fundraiser for Darren Wilson - Michael-Ridgway (talk) 02:17, 19 August 2014 (UTC)

Close?

Anyone think this is going to close as something other than exclude/no consensus for inclusion? (Note this is not the same thing as thinking it should be included, everyone is entitled to an opinion, but what is a neutral evaluation of the consensus above?) If I don't see any strong objections to an exclude/no consensus for inclusion close, I will be closing it later today. Gaijin42 (talk) 16:06, 25 August 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Whether versus whether or not

According to this edit, there's some question about the use of "whether or not" versus just "whether" in the sentence, "The shooting is currently under investigation by a grand jury, which will decide whether or not to indict anyone for the shooting."

It looks like "whether or not" is correct because it is modifying the verb "decide".

The New York Times Manual of Style and Usage (Random House, 1999, p.355) says that “when a whether clause modifies a verb, or not is needed:

They’ll play tomorrow whether or not it rains.

(The clause [with whether] modifies ‘play.’)”[32][33]

--Bob K31416 (talk) 17:32, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

I just noticed there was another instance of "or not" being removed in the edit.[34] That use of "whether or not" should be restored simply because it was in a direct quote. To sum up, the edit [35] should be reverted. --Bob K31416 (talk) 18:03, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Here are my two cents. Both phrases mean the same thing. If you say "whether or not", you are explicitly outlining the "or not" alternative. If you simply say "whether", then the "or not" alternative is merely implied. It's still there, but it is there implicitly rather than explicitly. That being said, I think the explicit "whether or not" is more appropriate to this article. This is a highly contentious subject matter. And both sides need to be given equal weight. Thus, I think it's important to say that the grand jury may decide to indict or may not decide to indict (both options, explicitly). This is not a major problem, and it's a bit of linguistic hair-splitting. But, I'd rather "err" on the conservative side in an article like this. Why is this even contentious? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 18:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Using NYTMOS seems reasonable. Collect (talk) 23:47, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Good with this as well, especially as I note (and can think of) no real objections to "whether or not." Dyrnych (talk) 06:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Easy, please

As the news stream subsides, we ought not to start splitting hairs, and leave the article alone unless there is new information. If there is new information, we shall add it, but this back and forth on minutiae is not constructive. There are 1,000s of articles out there we can improve. - Cwobeel (talk) 19:50, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

If the news really is subsiding, this would be a good time to start trimming excessive detail and copy editing to improve cohesiveness and clarity. Of course, there's no urgency to doing so.- MrX 19:59, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

And like it or not, many people will come here to read about this incident. We still should provide an accurate and neutral summary as to what the sources have reported.Two kinds of pork (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2014 (UTC)

Generally speaking, I respond negatively to suggestions about where I should be working unpaid at Wikipedia. If one feels it's time to move on, one is free to do so. For my part, there is still a ton of work to do on refs, including archiving. I think I'll be here for another several weeks. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 09:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Handling of unused refs

Spinoff of this section, in which StAnselm said we can't have unused refs in the References section, despite practical reasons for doing so, because of the big red errors at the bottom of References section resulting from those unused refs.

I don't necessarily have a problem with this—I don't like errors either—but we should understand the implications. Here's how it will work if we stick to this policy.

• An editor removes a passage from the body, along with its cite. Unless the ref is used elsewhere, this will create an unused ref and the resulting error. There are currently two unused refs that were created in this way, both created within the last 18 hours or so.

• If the editor realizes that s/he has created an unused ref, knows that StAnselm doesn't like that, and cares what StAnselm thinks, and is aware of our local policy, s/he then has to edit the References section and comment out the ref. Or, someone else notices the error later and comments out the ref.

• At some later point, if someone reverts the removal, they will create an undefined ref, because the ref has been commented out. This will create a big red error at the bottom of the References section. It will also create a non-functional citation, where you get the usual citation number, but nothing happens when you hover or click on it. From the reader's standpoint, this is far more serious than the big red errors created by unused refs.

• Even if the editor realizes what has happened, they will then have to edit the References section and uncomment the ref. Rinse, repeat.

• The more likely scenario is that the non-functional citation will remain indefinitely. It will never be corrected unless it happens to be noticed by someone who edits Wikipedia, understands how to fix the problem, and cares enough to fix it.

It gets even messier when the removed passage has multiple refs, or when a ref is used in multiple places in the article.

Unless all editors understand how to keep the References section in sync with the body (even this understanding is non-trivial), and are willing to spend the time to do so, my way may be the lesser of the two evils. I don't propose to tolerate unused refs for any longer than two or three weeks, until this article has stabilized quite a bit. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 11:01, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

SUPPORT I tentatively support this proposition, as, while the big red errors are unsightly, your reasoning is assuredly sound. Icarosaurvus (talk) 12:07, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

User:Mandruss, please don't make this personal. "Knows that StAnselm doesn't like that, and cares what StAnselm thinks..." is bordering on a personal attack. Please keep your discourse civil so that toegther we can ensure the article is continually improved. StAnselm (talk) 13:43, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Fixed, I hope. My apologies. I didn't see it as anywhere near personal attack, but that clause isn't critical to the argument. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 13:49, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you. StAnselm (talk) 13:57, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I struck the last bullet upon further consideration. If we're watching the bottom of the References section for unused-ref errors, we'll also see undefined-ref errors, and will fix them. That just leaves us with the fact that the policy creates a lot of extra work commenting and uncommenting refs. That's assuming that people actually comment out refs rather than deleting them. The extra work increases considerably if people delete refs. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 14:10, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

When I was involved editing Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting, we commented out unused refs in the ref list section. This approach was uncontroversial and allowed for refs to be used again if similar material was later introduced to the article. Once the editing activity on the article decreases, the remaining unused refs can be removed. I support doing the same here.- MrX 14:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Yes, comment out and remove later. - Cwobeel (talk) 14:59, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

How about tolerating unused refs for a few weeks, the topic of this discussion? Do we accept the extra work, or the unused-ref errors? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:08, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

One of the refs that StAnselm commented out had a comment, <!-- no byline given --> in its author parameter. Apparently the software can't handle nested comments, so it throws up and completely loses its mind, throwing dozens of errors for other refs. So I did it without the exclamation point, as <--ref name=refname.... I don't exactly know why but that avoided the problem. I guess that made the ref tag an "invalid tag", and the software can handle a comment inside an invalid tag. And it doesn't throw an error for an invalid tag, it just ignores it and moves on. Or something. Go figure. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 15:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I looked at the list of hidden categories at the bottom of this article, to see if the invalid tags added it to a tracking category. There are multiple tracking cats related to problems with refs, but none of them seem to describe this situation. I will eventually look into what the existing cats are complaining about and see if I can correct that. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:36, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

MrX and Cwobeel - As I read your responses, you support commenting out refs instead of deleting them, and that's good news. Maybe I'm dense, but it's not clear to me whether you're for accepting the extra commenting-uncommenting work or the unused-ref errors for a few weeks. Could you be more specific? Thanks. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:48, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Yes, comment them out and save them for a few weeks. I would recommend not leaving <-- because the correct HTML syntax is <!-- HTML comments are not really supposed to be nested.- MrX 18:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

MrX To summarize: 1. You're in favor of the extra commenting-uncommenting work in order to avoid a few weeks of unused-ref errors. 2. You feel we should remove all "no byline given" comments (a fairly common practice in good refs) because leaving them in requires the use of a technique that is not strictly correct HTML usage. Do I have that right? ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:03, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Ok I'm feeling the need for some R&R in the form of a WP:WIKIBREAK. I'll let you guys sort this out and I'll return in a few days. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:25, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't think I understood the full extent of the issue. I advocate commenting out and retaining unused references, and removing them later. If the ref has a "no byline given" comment wrapped in HTML comment brackets, the parameter, comment, and brackets should be removed. Example: author=<!-- No byline given -->. We should remove the entire author=<!-- No byline given --> since its absence would seem to indicate that it is not available.- MrX 19:34, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I use Diigo and its sister Chrome extension to capture stories that I might want to get back to some day should I need a cite for a tidbit of information. Wouldn't it be cool if there was a way to collaboratively tag articles that relate to a Wikipedia article so that as edits come and edits go, when you need the cite, the app inserts the necessary tagged information into the article and when you don't need the cite, it automatically is disabled, but not deleted, so that it's there should someone else need it at a later time? That would be one massively useful tool. Hint, hint, programming ninjas among us. Michael-Ridgway (talk) 21:05, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

Eric Holder

Eric Holder visited the city. He met with the family of Brown. This is important enough to add into the article, no? Or is it already there, and I missed it? Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:38, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

You're aware that you can use your browser's Find to locate occurrences of "Holder"? Just trying to help. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 12:54, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

No, I am unaware of that. I have no idea how to do that. How do I do so, with Mozilla Firefox? Thanks. Also, is Holder in here or not yet? I can't find it. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:41, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

(Control)(F).- MrX 16:51, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I am on the article page (using Mozilla Firefox). I hit "Control F". It does absolutely nothing? What exactly am I supposed to be doing? Also: is Holder in here or not yet? I can't find it. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 17:22, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

After you press Ctrl-F, look at the bottom of the screen. You should see a search box, followed by up and down arrows, followed by "Highlight All" and "Match Case". Enter holder in the search box. This will scroll you to the first occurrence of Holder and highlight it. To see the next occurrence, click the down arrow. You can toggle "Highlight All" to highlight all occurrences on the page. You can toggle "Match Case" if you want a search to be case-sensitive (no need for that in this case, since there are no lower-case holder's in the article to get in your way). Let me know if that helps. I'm ignoring your last question since answering it yourself will give you actual real-life experience using Find in Firefox. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 18:18, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm going on a WP:WIKIBREAK for a few days, so I won't see anything you say to me here until I return. I will, however, watch my talk page. ‑‑Mandruss (talk) 19:33, 24 August 2014 (UTC)

OK, thanks. I figured it out. But, it had nothing to do with "Control F". It was a different process altogether. Nonetheless, I was able to figure it out. Thanks. Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 23:31, 24 August 2014 (UTC)